Political style election

[nomadpete]

Posting complaints on a forum will never solve any problems. If you are so very upset by any RAA happenings, the best course of action is to become a board member. Failing that, get actively involved with as many board members as possible. Get actively involved regularly. Become a friend and a positive influence. Ask them why (whatever), and if you can't offer any positive, achievable solutions (achievable in terms of all actual constraints such as time, cost, resources, etc), then take a deep breath, sit down, and let the board and exec get on with their work without this constant sniping. It just doesn't help anything get better.

 

Meanwhile, fly safe and have fun. That's what rec flying is all about.

 

Peter

 

 

[turboplanner]

I I suspect that Kasper is much more of a lawyer than I am. Our politicians seem to have two views about everything, and many of them are lawyers. I just try to asses what people are doing, how hard they are working and whether their aims are aligned with mine and with good governance. As I said, I am happy, I trust the current team, they don't need or deserve vilification.

OK, I take from that, you're not up with corporate specifics as we thought.

Kasper is not offering a general opinion; Kasper IS a lawyer and has given us very specific detail. The consequences of Directors being elected in an unlawful election is that every decision they make is invalid.

 

How silly would it be to proceed under those circumstances. This is a serious matter.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Posting complaints on a forum will never solve any problems. If you are so very upset by any RAA happenings, the best course of action is to become a board member. Failing that, get actively involved with as many board members as possible. Get actively involved regularly. Become a friend and a positive influence. Ask them why (whatever), and if you can't offer any positive, achievable solutions (achievable in terms of all actual constraints such as time, cost, resources, etc), then take a deep breath, sit down, and let the board and exec get on with their work without this constant sniping. It just doesn't help anything get better.Meanwhile, fly safe and have fun. That's what rec flying is all about.

Peter

He doesn't have the luxury of doing that. This isn't a disagreement it's a procedural problem with serious consequences. Sitting back and saying mothing here is going to have some very obvious consequences.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I didn't want to directly denigrate Kaspar or anyone else on this site. I know he is a lawyer. Just think about what you are doing and why you are doing it and what is the end game. Anyone can hang s... on others but what is the intent, where is it take us? I want people who have our interests at heart to be working hard for our benefit, and that is what I am seeing with the current leadership, as distinct from some in the recent past.

 

 

[kasper]

OK, I take from that, you're not up with corporate specifics as we thought.Kasper is not offering a general opinion; Kasper IS a lawyer and has given us very specific detail. The consequences of Directors being elected in an unlawful election is that every decision they make is invalid.

How silly would it be to proceed under those circumstances. This is a serious matter.

Close but not quite.

I am a solicitor - not currently practicing and by background is in legal drafting - legislation for the Govt in Canberra a lifetime ago and technical tax and trust deed for a decade or so. So calling me a lawyer is fair call.

 

Consequences of appointment as a director in conflict with the requirements of the constitution is a tricky one - in my opinion any appointment is subject to challenge if it is not in accordance with the constitution and I would be very concerned as to my liability acting as a director if I was appointed under such circumstances.

 

So as a member faced with a chairman who says effectively that this election is not under the constitution and accepts that many aspects of it are in direct conflict with the constitution but who has the only comment of sue me I have so far reported this to ASIC as a formal complaint against the initial directors and as noted above will be putting a resolution to the AGM to block the appointments.

 

These are the only low cost way to me of doing this as other than that I have to go to the supreme court to get an injunction to prevent the directors acting in contravention of the constitution. And whilst I believe that I would be able to get the injunction I feel it better for the membership as a whole to have all of these issues discussed openly and frankly in an attempt to correct the errors rather than have it just delivered from the court without any context or explanation as would be the case were it to be through a court injunction.

 

And for those saying I should put up and nominate to the board to get things changed please note that not everyone has the time and energy to put into it - I KNOW whats required as I was a board member of the UK BMAA and I am not currently in a work position to put in sufficient time to do the role justice and in any event it is a very weak argument to say anyone should get onto the board to have a say - sorry there are around 8-10,000 members in this RAAus beast and there are probably 150-500 who are actively interested in management and direction - can;lt have a board that big and even if I stood and failed to get elected that does not invalidate the interest I have nor the validity of issues.

 

 

[turboplanner]

PM, Never mind philosophy about the leadership; there's a problem here to be fixed, and fixed now.

 

 

[kasper]

I didn't want to directly denigrate Kaspar or anyone else on this site. I know he is a lawyer. Just think about what you are doing and why you are doing it and what is the end game. Anyone can hang s... on others but what is the intent, where is it take us? I want people who have our interests at heart to be working hard for our benefit, and that is what I am seeing with the current leadership, as distinct from some in the recent past.

Where it takes us is where the board SAID we would be taken - to a governance in accordance with the requirements of the association. Where they are taking us is from a procedural and governance perspective 6 years into the past to the era THEY said was appallingly deficient and needed changing.

 

 

[David Isaac]

OK, I take from that, you're not up with corporate specifics as we thought.Kasper is not offering a general opinion; Kasper IS a lawyer and has given us very specific detail. The consequences of Directors being elected in an unlawful election is that every decision they make is invalid.

How silly would it be to proceed under those circumstances. This is a serious matter.

Evening HH,

You are of course correct where Directors are unlawfully elected; and it would be technically unpleasant even where the outcome of an unlawful election was not detrimental to the members.

 

At this point in time I dont see how matters of legal technical argument around process would change the outcome even if the election had been held under the processes dictated in the new constitution at the time the election was called (and NO I am NOT endorsing failure to follow proper process, because process is the current argument). However, Kasp has indicated previously that he had a conversation with Michael Monke and that Michael had assured him the Board had sort a legal opinion and my understanding was that legal opinion was ratified by a second legal opinion. So I appreciate we have a difference of opinion and I cannot vouch for Kasp as I have no idea who he is or where he practices law; we just dont know because he hasn't told us. Please dont read that as disrespectful towards Kasp.

 

I suggest however, that we would be better putting our collective energies into special resolutions on matters that concerned us most about the new constitution prior to the votes that put the new constitution in place. We all know that on matters of equitable fairness we would have little problem convincing the masses to support any resolution that applied fairness to the members.

 

There were a few matters about the constitution that concerned a number of members of this forum and now is the time to formulate changes in special resolutions that would be equitably supported by the members. Somehow it appears we have lost sight of the matters of fury that were argued as affecting the members and yet we are head banging on technical matters of election over which there are conflicting legal opinions.

 

So given we appear to have a difference of legal opinion on this election matter, what possible value does expending energy on resolutions and technical argument when the outcomes would probably be no different in terms of who gets voted on the Board; and where the arguments and resolutions may present no perceived value (equitable or otherwise) to the members? Under these circumstances, why would the members support it when they are more interested in what affects them as members and how the constitution would influence the application of fairness?

 

 

[2tonne]

PM, Never mind philosophy about the leadership; there's a problem here to be fixed, and fixed now.

Only if you make it a problem.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Evening HH,You are of course correct where Directors are unlawfully elected; and it would be technically unpleasant even where the outcome of an unlawful election was not detrimental to the members.

At this point in time I dont see how matters of legal technical argument around process would change the outcome even if the election had been held under the processes dictated in the new constitution at the time the election was called (and NO I am NOT endorsing failure to follow proper process, because process is the current argument). However, Kasp has indicated previously that he had a conversation with Michael Monke and that Michael had assured him the Board had sort a legal opinion and my understanding was that legal opinion was ratified by a second legal opinion. So I appreciate we have a difference of opinion and I cannot vouch for Kasp as I have no idea who he is or where he practices law; we just dont know because he hasn't told us. Please dont read that as disrespectful towards Kasp.

 

I suggest however, that we would be better putting our collective energies into special resolutions on matters that concerned us most about the new constitution prior to the votes that put the new constitution in place. We all know that on matters of equitable fairness we would have little problem convincing the masses to support any resolution that applied fairness to the members.

 

There were a few matters about the constitution that concerned a number of members of this forum and now is the time to formulate changes in special resolutions that would be equitably supported by the members. Somehow it appears we have lost sight of the matters of fury that were argued as affecting the members and yet we are head banging on technical matters of election over which there are conflicting legal opinions.

 

So given we appear to have a difference of legal opinion on this election matter, what possible value does expending energy on resolutions and technical argument when the outcomes would probably be no different in terms of who gets voted on the Board; and where the arguments and resolutions may present no perceived value (equitable or otherwise) to the members? Under these circumstances, why would the members support it when they are more interested in what affects them as members and how the constitution would influence the application of fairness?

OK then, let er go.....................

 

 

[storchy neil]

Only if you make it a problem

 

that sounds like the bloke down the road with the bald tyres change em later got booked 400 dollars grounded car 600 dollars for new tyres taxi to work 60 dollars had he fixed the car before he got booked less costs interesting neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

Only if you make it a problem.

No, it's sitting there right now, available to be fixed, but if you don't fix it, the first you'll know of it will be when an issue arises, and CASA, or your opponent's lawyer (lawyers tend to do reasearch, as I found out in VCAT last week) points out the the Court that what you thought was your defence, has no status because the signatory was not an officer of the company, or a thousand other things that you think are of not consequence because youy just want to go flying.

 

 

[nomadpete]

My post was not intended to offend anyone. I respect the enthusiasm shown in this debate.

 

Bear in mind that (I believe) the present procedural issue arose after an executive decision was made in good faith after seeking legal guidance. My understanding is that this situation is transient - for an interim period between the old constitution and when the new constitution becomes effective. Is this so? Now that we are possibly exposed to risk, (depending on which legal advice wins IF tested in court) does the risk disappear after this interim period?

 

By the way, saying it here (on a forum) is unlikely to have any positive influence on events either. We can chat about it here until the cows come home but in the end it's a bit like leaning on a bar in a pub, discussing the state of the nation. We all have opinions but without taking part in the actual running of the show, it does no good.

 

Peter

 

 

[kgwilson]

What a load of whining, whinging, glass half empty, doomsday predicting soothsayers there are here. The constitution was approved. The election is on. Cast your vote. Then show good cause why you believe there should be chnges and get support from members to put these forward as resolutions or special resolutions. Then get yourself on the board to effect these. If you are right and have the support you will make it happen.

 

I for one do not want to see a return to the days before the Queenbeyan EGM where there was failure at every level from people who were passionate about recreational aviation, but who paid lip service to the regulator and had little in the way of business knowledge or acumen in a fast paced technology dominated world.

 

 

[storchy neil]

I for one do not want to see a return to the days before the Queenbeyan EGM where there was failure at every level from people who were passionate about recreational aviation, but who paid lip service to the regulator and had little in the way of business knowledge or acumen in a fast paced technology dominated world.

 

KG totally agree I have a feeling that It may continue if this mine field is not fixed now neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

This situation has nothing to do with the broad philosphy, whinging, glasses half full, or any of other the red herrings that people think up.

 

It comes down to being able to read and understand a Constitution and know whether it's meets the requiremements or is only 40 cents in the dollar.

 

And it comes down to whether a public statement complies with that Constitution.

 

If you can't make a judgement on whether the Constitution is suitable for a group of flyers, put that aside, it's spilt milk anyway and can be built up to standard albeit over a period of years.

 

What you can't afford to ignore is any non compliance with the Constitution where it's going to affect you or other flyers down the track, and that won't be fixed by sitting there sucking on your lollipop and taking shots at the people trying to help.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Posting complaints on a forum will never solve any problems.

Eh? the RAA board monitor this forum like a pack of hawks

 

 

[Yenn]

Ksper says he has advised ASIC of deficiencies in the running of RAA and also the constitution. ASIC are the controlling body and having been told of deficiencies, surely they are duty bound to look at what is happening. If they find the law has been broken, they know wht to do, if they find there is no problem, then all that has been said here is no longer relevant.

 

I just hope that we can get on with the flying we all like and that RAA will sort itself out after the election.

 

Let the new board look into any problems they see and we can look at their performance.

 

Having seen what a complete and utter stuff up our lawyer dominated politicians are making of Australia, I cannot see that lawyers would be good for us.

 

 

[kasper]

Ksper says he has advised ASIC of deficiencies in the running of RAA and also the constitution. ASIC are the controlling body and having been told of deficiencies, surely they are duty bound to look at what is happening. If they find the law has been broken, they know wht to do, if they find there is no problem, then all that has been said here is no longer relevant.I just hope that we can get on with the flying we all like and that RAA will sort itself out after the election.

Let the new board look into any problems they see and we can look at their performance.

 

Having seen what a complete and utter stuff up our lawyer dominated politicians are making of Australia, I cannot see that lawyers would be good for us.

Would but for timing - the ASIC guy I spoke to who is looking into the complaint said that given the timing of the election they would not be finished the investigation before it was complete and that they recommend that I either get an injunction or go through the AGM and the constitution to move a resolution to prevent/stop improper actions under the constitution - I am doing the latter and hope that the ASIC investigation completion is not too far in the future.

 

 

[facthunter]

Good luck to you, and I mean it in the right way... ASIC aren't too well funded and are probably well occupied without your contribution to their list of must do's. It's either legal or it isn't and I'm certainly NOT qualified to say with any certainty one way or the other. Whether you are in a "no man's Land", in the transition which ever way you go may be debatable. IF it's a question which would see divided opinions amongst the legal fraternity, You wouldn't spend your money pursuing it. Most of us would just take a "learned Legal's" advice, if it was a clear cut thing. Presumably the "TEAM" have already done that, and think their position will be capable of holding up. If they don't have that assurance they have no practical risk management skills. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Good luck to you, and I mean it in the right way... ASIC aren't too well funded and are probably well occupied without your contribution to their list of must do's. It's either legal or it isn't and I'm certainly NOT qualified to say with any certainty one way or the other. Whether you are in a "no man's Land", in the transition which ever way you go may be debatable. IF it's a question which would see divided opinions amongst the legal fraternity, You wouldn't spend your money pursuing it. Most of us would just take a "learned Legal's" advice, if it was a clear cut thing. Presumably the "TEAM" have already done that, and think their position will be capable of holding up. If they don't have that assurance they have no practical risk management skills. Nev

Indeed yes.

From the public records of the ACT Government

 

The date of cessation of registration of association A02621 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA was 8 August 2016

 

From the public records of ASIC

 

The date of commencement of registration of ACN 070 931 645 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED was 26 July 2016

 

Now I have to assume that the cessation date of 8 August was simply when ASIC confirmed to the ACT government that the registration handover was completed.

 

AND the constitution of RAAus Ltd only became effective and operational on registration with ASIC ...that was part of the proposal put before the membership and voted on ...

 

But based on any interpretation of these dates and which constitution applied calling for and closing nominations before ASIC registration occurred is something that needs to be explained - and explained clearly because on the face of it it is just not correct.

 

And add to that, even IF you have legal advice that you can apply the new constitution before it comes into effect AND retrospectively correct the timing issue WHY then is the election process as operating NOT even in compliance with the new constitution? and why is the chairman saying when challenged on this I know its not, it does not need to be because we are not yet registered so do not need to comply

 

 

 

[Yenn]

I see the latest is that Australia Post are late delivering some magazines with the included voting papers. RAA have decided to open letters received late if they are postmarked correctly.

 

What happened to the part of the constitution which said 3 days was the considered time for posting notices to members. Personally I don't think it matters, just so long as the busines can go on, but there have certainly been some stuff ups.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Indeed yes.From the public records of the ACT Government

 

The date of cessation of registration of association A02621 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA was 8 August 2016

 

From the public records of ASIC

 

The date of commencement of registration of ACN 070 931 645 RECREATIONAL AVIATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED was 26 July 2016

 

Now I have to assume that the cessation date of 8 August was simply when ASIC confirmed to the ACT government that the registration handover was completed.

 

AND the constitution of RAAus Ltd only became effective and operational on registration with ASIC ...that was part of the proposal put before the membership and voted on ...

 

But based on any interpretation of these dates and which constitution applied calling for and closing nominations before ASIC registration occurred is something that needs to be explained - and explained clearly because on the face of it it is just not correct.

 

And add to that, even IF you have legal advice that you can apply the new constitution before it comes into effect AND retrospectively correct the timing issue WHY then is the election process as operating NOT even in compliance with the new constitution? and why is the chairman saying when challenged on this I know its not, it does not need to be because we are not yet registered so do not need to comply

Kasp,

What you have described above is a bunch of dates the meaning of which may well be lost on the members. Please explain the relevance of those dates to the calling and process of election; and where the actual process adopted is in breach of good governance as you allege.

 

 

[Oscar]

There is a real issue with the 'new' real post times due to Aus.Post being radically reamed, drilled and stuffed up. Many government instrumentalities are operating on the basis that their posted notices have to be responded to within a fixed period (e.g. Centrelink, 14 days notice typically), and the actual notices are not being received by the 'respond by' ultimatum in more remote areas..

 

RAA does NOT run a private postal service: it has to rely on what is available.

 

 

[David Isaac]

........ What happened to the part of the constitution which said 3 days was the considered time for posting notices to members.

Yenn,

With the current restraints on Aust Post which they have now made public, the 3 days needs to be more like 7 days unless you are prepared to pay the express post fee.